The bottom line is simple!

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Rumsfeld, Apr 19, 2008.


  1. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    Calzaghe out-adjusted the master of versatility.

    It wasn't work rate that one, it was Calzaghe's ability to adjust and neutralize Hops' strengths when I fully believed the opposite would come to fruition, especially after Hops' fast start.

    If Calzaghe was as as average as I thought, Hops would have RAPED HIM!!!

    The reason he didn't had EVERYTHING to do with what Calzaghe DID do and nothing with what Hops DIDN'T.

    :smoke
     
  2. acb

    acb De Camaguey... Gavilan Full Member

    9,448
    4
    Jan 6, 2007
    You are severly overating this performance Rumsfeld. Perhaps this is due to having to adjust to your expectations that the opposite would take place tonight.
     
  3. EARL

    EARL Active Member Full Member

    1,248
    1
    Mar 8, 2008
    This is utter bull****. Calzaghe's physical edges is exactly what won him this fight.. not some improvisation genious. Hopkins was constantly forcing and suckering Calzaghe into fighting out of his rhythm.

    Calzaghe won this fight because of his constant workrate and ***** slaps on the highest level of the ****ing scale. What the hell was Calzaghe thinking throwing punches so horribly? I'll even give Calzaghe credit I've never seen him throw punches that looked so utterly pathetic.
     
  4. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    I absolutely reject this sentiment.

    Hops is still world class (regardless of who wants to admit it). You DON'T beat him, even at 43, unless you know what the **** you're doing in the ring.
     
  5. DaHead242

    DaHead242 Active Member Full Member

    1,470
    0
    Aug 28, 2004
    I'm pretty drunk right now but I seem to really be appreciating the honesty of your posts. no bull****, no excuses, two men fought calzaghe won and that is that. credit goes to him for beating a great fighter.:good :smoke
     
  6. acb

    acb De Camaguey... Gavilan Full Member

    9,448
    4
    Jan 6, 2007
    Nobody disputes his knowledge of the sport, or his ability. But to say he was genious in this fight is absurd.

    Bernard is world class, but not for the full 12 rounds at this point in his career.
     
  7. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    I think this view actually sells Joe short. Hops neutralized Joe's flurried EARLY. I thought that was all it would take.

    Joe made TWO key adjustments that won him the fight.

    He learned to read Hops' lead right (which was HUGE) and he adapted by throwing LESS punches with more snap to neutralize Hops.

    Had he NOT done that, Hops would have ran away with this.

    Seriously, those two adjustments tell the whole story.

    Calzaghe did NOT beat Hops on work rate the way many predicted. He actually beat him by being creftier.
     
  8. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    HORSE****!

    I'd love to say Hops got old overnight to vindicate my own prefight predictions. Didn't happen.
     
  9. acb

    acb De Camaguey... Gavilan Full Member

    9,448
    4
    Jan 6, 2007
    But thats exactly the point. Bernard at this point is a one punch at a time fighter due to his age. His once utilized a great jab, worked the body, and put his hands together moreso than he does now.
     
  10. EARL

    EARL Active Member Full Member

    1,248
    1
    Mar 8, 2008
    You're still not telling me what display of " craftiness " Joe showed in this fight. All's I saw Calzaghe do was slightly outhustle Hopkins. Through most portions of the fight Hopkins was the one dictating how the fight was going to be fought, not Calzaghe.
     
  11. Lostmykeys

    Lostmykeys Active Member Full Member

    886
    1
    May 11, 2007
    I littile off there man.

    1. Hopkins was never gonna "run away" with the fight, he dosen't have the workrate to take enough rounds from Calzaghe, the only way he would win would be a Close decison.

    2. I think you must be basing this on the fact that he didn't get knocked down again because even late in the fight Hopkins was still hitting him with rights.
     
  12. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    Well, agree to disagree.

    Pre-fight, I believe I (accurately) predicted the winner would be the guy who made the best adjustments. Calzaghe was that man (for the two important reasons I stated--THAT was the craftiness!!).

    I presupposed it would be Hops.
     
  13. acb

    acb De Camaguey... Gavilan Full Member

    9,448
    4
    Jan 6, 2007
    By playing up Joe's genious, vindicating your predictions is EXACTLY what your doing.

    I predicted Joe to win by SD, and knew Bernard would be limited coming in. He has been steadily more limited on a fight to fight basis and it showed against Winky.
     
  14. Rumsfeld

    Rumsfeld Moderator Staff Member

    49,371
    15,341
    Jul 19, 2004
    Damn!

    :lol:

    All I will say is my entire POINT is that I think Hopkins is still awesome. His loss had less to do with what he didn't do and more to do with what Calzaghe DID do.

    :good
     
  15. sues2nd

    sues2nd Fading into Bolivian... Full Member

    9,760
    8
    Aug 7, 2004
    Good post!!!